4.  The applicant was born in 1977 and is serving a sentence in Diyarbakır prison.
5.  On 11 January 1996 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of being a member of Hizbullah, an illegal organisation. On the same day he was examined by a doctor at the request of the police. The doctor noted, in a police document, that there was no sign of physical violence on the applicant’s body.
6.  On 24 January 1996 the applicant’s statement was taken by the police. The applicant acknowledged being a member of Hizbullah and gave a detailed account of his activities within that illegal organisation. The applicant did not benefit from the assistance of a lawyer when he made that statement.
7.  On 2 February 1996 the applicant was once again examined by a doctor who, in a document issued by the police headquarters to which the applicant’s name was added, noted that there was no sign of physical violence on his body.
8.  On the same day the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor and, subsequently, a judge, who questioned him and recorded his statements. On both occasions he retracted the statements he had made to the police, claiming that he had signed them under duress. The judge remanded him in custody.
9.  On the same day the applicant was placed in detention.
10.  On 29 February 1996 the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed an indictment with that court, accusing the applicant and several other persons – pursuant to Article 125 of the former Criminal Code, in force at the material time – of carrying out activities with the aim of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory. The public prosecutor alleged that the applicant had taken part in the killing of eight persons and the wounding of four persons by Hizbullah.
11.  On 18 April 1996 the Diyarbakır State Security Court held the first hearing on the merits of the case (case no. 1996/113).
12.  On 8 May 1996 the applicant made a statement before the court in which he denied the charges brought against him, claiming that he had been coerced by the police into signing the document containing his statement.
13.  On 13 June 1996, at the end of the third hearing in the case, the applicant was released pending trial.
14.  On 18 June 1999 the Constitution was amended and the military judges on the bench of the state security courts were replaced by civilian judges.
15.  On 21 February 2002 – while case no. 1996/113 was still pending before the Diyarbakır State Security Court – the applicant was arrested once again, on suspicion of having been involved in certain armed acts undertaken by Hizbullah. According to the arrest report, which was signed by three police officers and the applicant, the police had had to use force in order to apprehend the applicant, since the latter had attempted to resist arrest and flee.
16.  On the same day the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Batman state hospital. The doctor noted, in a police document, that the applicant had signs of physical violence on six areas on his back, bruises on both wrists, two cuts on his left ear and an injury to his right eye.
17.  On 24 February 2002 the applicant gave a statement to the police in the absence of a lawyer, explaining in detail the structure of the illegal organisation and his role as a member. According to the police document, he acknowledged, inter alia, that he had been involved in a number of killings and abductions committed by Hizbullah.
18.  On 25 February 2002 the applicant was once again examined by a doctor at the Batman state hospital. In a document of the police directorate to which the applicant’s name was added, the doctor who examined the applicant noted that he had a cut on his left ear.
19.  On the same day the applicant was questioned by the Batman Magistrates’ Court. During that questioning, the applicant, without any legal assistance, retracted the statement he had made to the police. He alleged that he had been blindfolded while in police custody and coerced into signing that document. The Batman Magistrates’ Court remanded the applicant in custody.
20.  On 27 February 2002 the applicant lodged an objection with the Batman Criminal Court against the decision of 25 February 2002 remanding him in custody. In his petition, the applicant denied the charges against him and submitted that he had been subjected to ill-treatment while in police custody. In particular, he had been stripped naked, blindfolded, given electric shocks to his genitals, subjected to “Palestinian hanging”, threatened with the rape of his wife, and insulted.
21.  On 13 March 2002 the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court lodged a new indictment with that court under Article 146 of the then applicable Criminal Code, accusing the applicant of having attempted to undermine the constitutional order by force. According to the bill of indictment, the applicant had, acting within the hierarchy of Hizbullah, given instructions for the killing of three persons and the abduction of two others.
22.  On 16 May 2002 the Diyarbakır State Security Court held a hearing in the case initiated by the public prosecutor’s indictment dated 13 March 2002 (case no. 2002/81). During the hearing, the applicant made a statement and retracted the statement that he had given to the police and denied the charges against him. He further stated that he had not attempted to flee arrest and stated that the arrest report was untrue. He noted that police officers had been present during his medical examinations; therefore, he had not been able to inform the doctors that he had been ill-treated. At the end of the hearing, at the request of the public prosecutor, the first-instance court decided to join the case to case no. 1996/113.
23.  During the thirty-third hearing in case no. 1996/113, on 6 June 2002, the applicant made a statement before the first-instance court and once again stated that the various police documents contained untruths.
24.  On 16 January 2004 the applicant filed a request with the Diyarbakır State Security Court to be allowed to benefit from the Reintegration of Offenders into Society Act (“Law no. 4959”).
25.  At a hearing held on 8 April 2004, the applicant confirmed the accuracy of his statement to the police and stated that he had been a member of Hizbullah. He maintained, however, that he had never been involved in any armed acts but had only provided intelligence to other members of Hizbullah. He reiterated his request to benefit from Law no. 4959 during eight other hearings and in his petitions dated 8 April and 24 November 2004, 3 March 2005, 13 April 2006, and 22 February 2007 and submitted to the first-instance court, noting that he had no negative comments to make in respect of the police or the other State authorities.
26.  By Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, published in the Official Gazette on 30 June 2004, the State Security Courts were abolished. The case against the applicant was accordingly transferred to the Diyarbakır Assize Court.
27.  On 10 June 2008 the Diyarbakır Assize Court delivered its judgment in the case.
28.  The Diyarbakır Assize Court acquitted the applicant of (i) all the charges against him brought under the public prosecutor’s indictment of 29 February 1996 (see paragraph 10 above), (ii) the charge of involvement in the killing of one of the three persons noted in the indictment of 13 March 2002, and (iii) the charge of involvement in the alleged abduction of two other persons (see paragraph 21 above). In acquitting the applicant of those charges, the first-instance court noted that there was no evidence against the applicant other than the statements he had made to the police, which had allegedly been taken under duress.
29.  On the other hand, the Diyarbakır Assize Court found that the applicant had been a member of Hizbullah and had ordered two other members of Hizbullah to kill two persons in furtherance of Hizbullah’s aims and that his order had been executed by those two members. In its judgment the court relied on (i) the applicant’s statement to the police made on 24 February 2002 (see paragraph 17 above), (ii) the statement that he had made on 8 April 2004 during the trial (see paragraph 25 above), (iii) the statements to the police of the two gunmen who had allegedly carried out the killings upon the instructions of the applicant, and (iv) the statements of those gunmen before the public prosecutors and investigating judges after they had been arrested. The Diyarbakır Assize Court considered that the aforementioned statements by the applicant and the gunmen were consistent with each other and proved that the applicant had instructed the gunmen to kill the two persons mentioned in the bill of indictment. The court accordingly convicted the applicant of attempting to undermine the constitutional order by force under Article 146 of the former Criminal Code and sentenced him to life imprisonment. It further rejected his request to benefit from Law no. 4959, as he had not provided information which could have contributed to the dissolution of an illegal organisation or brought to light any facts unknown to the authorities.
30.  In its judgment, the Diyarbakır Assize Court also referred to four medical reports drawn up in respect of the applicant, but did not refer to the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment. The court noted that the first two reports, which had been issued in 1996, had not indicated any sign of ill‑treatment, whereas the others, drawn up on 21 and 25 February 2002 respectively (before and after the applicant’s detention in police custody) referred, respectively, to trauma and cuts on the applicant’s body and a cut on his left ear.
31.  On 12 June 2008 the applicant’s lawyer appealed against the judgment, arguing that the applicant had been convicted on the basis of statements taken under duress.
32.  On the same day the applicant made another application to benefit from Law no. 4959 and requested a reduction in his sentence in view of the fact that he had been a minor at the time of the offence.
33.  On 8 October 2009 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s requests and upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.